Dynadot

information Lease-To-Own Domain Name Payment Plans

Spaceship Spaceship
A lot has happened since I last covered Domain Name Payment Plans in the NamePros Blog in 2019. Partly because of the terminology used by Dan, one of the major marketplaces offering payment plans for a number of years, such plans are usually now called Lease-To-Own (LTO), a more precise term.

More marketplaces now offer LTO as an option, and as of last week’s announcement, that will include Afternic.

While it is hard to get firm statistics, it seems that the fraction of names offered with a LTO option has increased over the years. Once Afternic LTO is active, that will undoubtedly increase.

Businesses are accustomed to leasing many things, and it makes sense to be able to do that with a digital asset, to spread payments over a time interval when they expect higher revenue.

Information on the Afternic Sale Lander Settings page indicates, presumably based on in-house research,
On average, sellers who offer payment plans generate 30% to 200% more sales.

The Basic Idea

I think most are now familiar with domain name lease-to-own (LTO) plans, but here is an outline.
  • When a name is sold under a LTO, the domain name is usually placed under control of the marketplace, or some other third party.
  • The domain name buyer pays the first monthly installment, and then the buyer has use, but not ownership, of the domain name. They could, for example, have it forwarded to an existing website, or DNS settings to support a new website on the name.
  • The legal agreement prohibits use in ways that would harm the value of the domain name – we will have more on that later.
  • After the final payment is complete, domain name ownership is transferred to the buyer, and the transaction is complete.
  • In the event of non-payment, the domain name reverts to the seller. Normally the payments that have already been made, minus commissions and possibly fees, are retained by the seller.
Check the terms of service if you are considering offering domain names on LTO, in particular how your domain names are protected from harm, and the details on fees and procedures.

Once a buyer has started a LTO, as long as the buyer keeps making payments, and follows restrictions outlined in the contract, the seller can’t change their mind about selling. Therefore, one attractive feature of a LTO, from the buyer perspective, is that they can lock-in rights to a name without a major up-front payment.

The buyer has the freedom to walk away from the purchase, with no obligation to continue payments, and with no loss other than the amount they have already paid. This is attractive to some buyers who may not be sure about a project, but want to secure their preferred name. I could not obtain statistics, but anecdotally it seems that quite a few LTO plans result in premature termination of payments.

Domain Name Rental Is Different

Some domain marketplaces and services, such as Dan, also offer domain name rental options. It is important to be clear that lease-to-own and rental are different.

On a rental plan, the payments made are simply to rent use of the domain name for some period of time. The business renting the name has no claim on ownership of the name, no matter how long they pay rent.

Dan LTO

This is how the Dan lease-to-own works.
  • To use installments, first from the Settings section of your account, on the For Sale page subsection, scroll down to Payment Plan Options and select Enable Installments.
  • From that, you set the maximum possible LTO period. Your choices are up to 12 months, 13-24 months, 25-36 months, 37-60 months, or a custom setting. The longer the period the more your commission settings will be reduced, but also there is a higher markup on the list price for the buyer. See more on this below.
  • Your domain name must have a buy-now price set, with a minimum price of $495.
  • You activate LTO on an individual domain name from the Pricing tab. After turning on LTO for that name, you can select the number of payments, but each needs to be at least $99. For example, if you have a $495 buy-now price, you are allowed up to 5 payments, each at $99. Because of financing charges added, higher priced domain names have longer maximum periods, for example a $4000 name can be as many as 52 months, with the buyer paying $100 per month.
  • Dan also offers rental options, and you can activate, from the Pricing tab, both rental and lease options on the same name.
  • As long as no purchase has been made, you are allowed to change the LTO period on individual names at any time.
  • When you have a LTO sale active, Dan automatically handle the collection of the funds each month, and make a payment of the net amount after commission.
  • The buyer can stop the plan, in which case the domain name will be returned to your account and control. You keep the funds already paid. The buyer can also, at Dan, make payments early, and take ownership prior to the full LTO period.
Afternic LTO

Since GoDaddy own both Afternic and Dan, the newly announced Afternic LTO program is similar to Dan. Dan recently made changes in their compensation to sellers for long-term leases to make the two consistent, see the next section.

@James Iles laid out the main aspects of Afternic LTO in the Afternic Blog article Afternic is Launching Lease to Own - 4 Things Sellers Can Do Today. It was also published here at NamePros on the official GoDaddy discussion thread. Here are some key points based on that article, and the discussion on the topic here and on social media.
  • It is important to realize that Afternic has made it now possible for sellers to set up their domains allowing LTO, but that the Afternic LTO program for domain buyers is not yet active. When will that happen? The release says “soon”, and by press time I was not able to get a firm date.
  • At least at launch, the Afternic LTO will cover domain names with BIN prices between $495 and $100,000. In response to investor comments, @Paul Nicks replied on social media that this is step one, and the high-end cutoff might increase at a later date.
  • The Afternic LTO duration can be up to 60 months, depending on the domain price. The monthly payment must be at least $100.
  • For existing Afternic domain name listings, you will need to enable LTO from the Afternic portfolio area. When you activate LTO for a domain name, it will be set to the maximum possible, but you can adjust to a shorter length.
  • You can save time by selecting multiple names using the left-hand tick boxes, and then enable LTO on the set.
  • For names added in the future to Afternic, you can make the default setting to have LTO activated. Go to the Afternic account settings, then under Lease To Own activate Enable Installments. You can also set your default lander at the same place.
  • Note that having your Dan listed names appear at Afternic, the default after Aug. 1, 2023, does not mean that those names will have the LTO option enabled at Afternic, even if you have LTO activated on the original Dan listing. This means if you want to use Afternic LTO you should directly list the names at Afternic.
  • There is a small point that I almost overlooked. Apparently you must not choose Dan lander at Afternic if you simultaneously have the name listed at Dan.
  • At a later date, LTO enabled Afternic names will have the LTO option at GoDaddy registrar listings. At least for now, it will not be throughout the fast transfer network.
  • Various people have asked about domain names that do not sell at the BIN price. The official Afternic account on Twitter has responded that their brokers will be able to activate LTO on negotiated price sales.
Price Markup and Commission Reduction

Both Dan and Afternic will have an identical structure that offers a seller commission discount depending on the length of the LTO.

2-12 months​
13-24 months​
25-36 months​
37-60 months​
0%​
5%​
10%​
15%​

If the length is 12 months or less there is no markup to buyer from the list price, and no reduction of commission paid by the seller.

For example, let’s say you sell a $3000 name at Afternic on a 30 month LTO. The seller commission is reduced by 10%. This means that if the lander was pointed to Afternic or Dan, setting 15% commission, your net commission would now just be 5%. If you were not using Afternic or Dan DNS settings, so the standard commission is 25%, it would be reduced by to 15%.

So how can Afternic and Dan offer this commission reduction? It is because the price paid by the buyer is increased from the list price. Through 12 months, there is no markup, and the buyer pays the same total as they would for an instant purchase. From 13 through 24 months the markup is 10%, from 25 through 36 months 20%, and from 37 to 60 months the markup would be 30%.

For example, for the $3000 example on a 30 month LTO sale, if your DNS had pointed at Dan or Afternic, your net commission would only be 5%, or $150. However, the buyer of the domain name would pay a 20% markup, $3600 instead of the $3000 list.

SquadHelp LTO

SquadHelp allow you to set lease-to-own on both standard and premium listings, with the maximum period 24 months. The seller can select the maximum number of installments for individual names, including none offered. Buyers can choose shorter periods at checkout, and are not required to use the maximum length. As with Dan, the seller can alter the number of installments at any time, as long as a purchase plan is not operational.

Escrow.COM

For high-priced names, Escrow.com offers the lowest overall cost for a LTO. At Escrow.com it is called Secure domain name holding, and the link provides details.

There is the standard Escrow fee plus a holding fee. If Escrow.com are managing the DNS, the holding fee is $40/month, while the fee is $25/month if the DNS setup and changes are managed by the seller. Normally the transaction is set up so that the buyer pays the fees, or sometimes buyer and seller share fees.

BrandBucket

BrandBucket allows payments up to 12 months in length. When prospective buyers are using the BrandBucket search engine they can set it to only show names with LTO availability.

BrandPa

At BrandPa you can set whether payments are available on individual names. The maximum period is 12 months. The cost to buyer is essentially the same, whether the domain name is bought instantly or on a payment plan.

Biix

Payment options are available at Biix, I presume administered through Escrow.com that they use to close sales. The option shows up on the lander. There are at least options to 36 months duration. With a pull-down, their lander shows the price per day, interesting information for the prospective buyer.

Big Sellers

Many of the big sellers offer LTO payment plans. This is important to keep in mind, since buyers for our domain names may well be considering name options at these sellers.

HugeDomains offer 3, 6 or 12 month plans on most domain names, all without interest charges.

DomainMarket offers payment plans up to 24 months on many names, with the plan administered by Escrow.com and the buyer paying the service fee. They offer a discount over listed price for paying full cost up front.

Dynadot

Several registrars offer LTO programs for names registered at that registrar and sold on their marketplace. The Dynadot program allows up to 12 months, but only for a period as long as the name has remaining on registration, minus one month.

NameSilo

NameSilo has offered payment plans for some time, with a maximum duration of 12 months. If you use the NameSilo landers, they clearly show both BIN and LTO options to prospective buyers.

Other Options

See my earlier article for other options, including using a domain attorney to set up an individual agreement for a LTO.

Protection of Names on LTO

I think the main concern about LTO has been possible harm to the domain name, that would decrease future worth if the plan terminates and the name is to be resold.

Here is the relevant section of the Dan Terms of Service covering lease and rental plans. It starts with the following general statement:
In the event of purchase of a domain name by way of Rental Agreement and/or Lease to Own Agreement, the Transferee shall only use the domain name in accordance with any applicable law and regulation, and with all duty and care.
It then itemizes a number of specifically restricted uses:
For the avoidance of doubt, the Transferee is banned from using the domain name in case such use:
  • is in breach of any applicable law, statute, or regulation;
  • is fraudulent, criminal or unlawful;
  • promotes racism, bigotry, hatred or physical harm of any kind against any group or individual;
  • infringes or breaches the patent, copyright, trademark, trade secret, right of publicity or other intellectual property) rights of any Third Party;
    contains video, audio photographs, or images of another person without his or her permission (or in the case of a minor, the minor's legal guardian’s permission);
  • provides information on any illegal activity (including, but not limited to, instructional information on acquiring or fabricating illegal weapons or drugs, privacy violations or distributing computer viruses);
  • publicizes or promotes commercial activities an/or sales without our prior written consent such as contests, sweepstakes, barter, advertising, and pyramid schemes; or
  • involves the use, delivery or transmission of any viruses, harmful code, unsolicited emails, Trojan horses or any other computer programming routines that are intended to disrupt, damage, detrimentally interfere with, surreptitiously intercept or expropriate any system, data or personal information.
It then adds
Notwithstanding the above, Client acknowledges and agrees that any (other) prohibited activity as referred to in Clause 5 above, as well or any other activity which may cause damages to the Provider or another person or Third Party and/or which may decrease the value of the domain name are strictly prohibited. Such activities include (but are not limited to) the use of aggressive SEO strategies, techniques and tactics that focus only on search engines and not a human audience, and usually does not obey search engines guidelines (black hat SEO), such as keyword stuffing, invisible text, doorway pages, adding unrelated keywords to the page content or page swapping (changing the webpage entirely after it has been ranked by search engines), and the use of the domain name for spam activities.

I was not able to find the corresponding Afternic LTO statement, but would presume it will be provided prior to LTO becoming active for buyers, and will be similar, or identical, to the Dan terms.

A key concern raised by @jberryhill, is exactly who is the registrant during the LTO period, should a UDRP be launched.

Final Thoughts

Here are a few personal thoughts on lease-to-own.
  • Small businesses and startups may the option to spread out payments for a name into the future when they expect to be profitable very attractive. Offering a LTO option should increase sell-through rate.
  • A LTO option, particularly a lengthy one, helps alleviate ‘sticker shock’ of a domain name being priced much higher than the prospective buyer anticipated. This also should help improve sell-through rates.
  • Many domain investors run with low cash reserves, often needing funds from a recent sale to cover the next few months of renewals. Regular revenue through a number of active LTO plans may help provide regular cash flow.
  • When it becomes active, the LTO option on GoDaddy registrar search will make a difference. Now some buyers see a high price, and walk away, but if presented as a monthly price over 48 or 60 months, they might reconsider.
  • It is a fact of life that a considerable fraction of LTO plans will not run to completion. While that is unfortunate for both sellers and the marketplace, the seller does get to keep most of the money already paid, and regains the name.
  • Very long LTO periods may bring their own risks. That might include risks associated with stability of the marketplace, or other party, administering the program. Also, the longer the time period, the more likely harm may come to hurt the value of the domain name.
  • As a marketing strategy, the DomainMarket approach with a list price plus LTO option, but a discount for buying outright, would seem effective.
  • The domain community needs to do a better job getting the word out to the business community on the availability of lease-to-own domain name options, and exactly how they work. I have seen online confusion between rental plans and lease-to-own.
  • If you have a high-value name, be very sure that the LTO agreement, and prohibited uses, covers any way the name might be harmed.
  • While we naturally think of LTO in terms of selling domain names, I know of several domain name investors who have purchased names on LTO.

Please share in the comments section below your own thoughts and experiences, positive or negative, with lease-to-own.

Those associated with other marketplaces or services offering LTO should feel free to mention them in the comment section below.

Update July 26, 2023:
In response to social media comments by John Berryhill, including asking where the Afternic ToS for LTO buyers were, the official Afternic X account has confirmed that Dan LTO ToS apply to Afternic LTO sales, since Dan is used to close these sales.

Update Sept 1, 2023: To prevent confusion, one sentence was removed from the protections for buyers section as it does not reflect the current status of the Dan Terms of Service agreement.
 
45
•••
The views expressed on this page by users and staff are their own, not those of NamePros.
1
•••
Used it once at epik, epik had all their problems, but that one was completed smoothly.
They still owe me something and they refuse to pay it, but not related to that lto sale.
 
3
•••
Great article @Bob Hawkes

I think it can be improved for better results

I agree that the wording " Lease to own" may result confusing for some prospective buyers.

I think It would be better to use something like:

Example for a sale at 12 month

Buy now for $1,200
Or
Start a payment plan / Pay in installments
$120 /month. For 12 month


Also the amount of month have to appear. I think it's very important for better results.

A big player is doing it this way so I think It would be possible
1689858473945.png

I hope @DAN.COM @GoDaddy take a look at this article and take it in consideration

I don't know if there would be a legal concern so it would be good to hear their opinion
 
Last edited:
4
•••
Also the amount of month have to appear.
Dan already clearly show the amount per month, as do all of the others as far as I recall from my investigations. Agree it is important to have a clear statement of both the 'list' price and what the monthly price will be and duration.

Also, if the potential buyer at Dan clicks the lease to own, there is additional information that appears, and also a link for even more information that goes to a page with all of the obvious questions answered. In my opinion, the Dan LTO is pretty near perfect in terms of user experience. I hope that Afternic experience will either be the exact same or similar.

The one thing that I think they might add would be some discount to list, even a small one, for an instant full purchase, like DomainMarket do.

Re the name, while LTO needed a while to grow on me, I think that lease-to-own is far better than payment plan, as it shows that the plan results in ownership, if plan completed. Outside the domain industry, but among those who start companies and buy domains, there is at least some misunderstanding over the fact that once a buyer starts a LTO they have a guarantee of eventual ownership if they make all of the payments.

Thanks for your reflections, and the example that you shared.

Bob
 
Last edited:
2
•••
Used it once at epik
Thanks for your contribution, and glad the LTO there worked out for you. When I used their marketplace in the past, I also made that option available to potential sellers.

Epik were one of the first to offer payment plans and rental, and had (perhaps still have) the most flexible set of options where things like down payment, interest rate, etc. can all be customized for an individual name. They also allowed sellers to set very low monthly payments if desired. I debated whether to include Epik LTO in this article, but with the payment problems of the last year, decided not to. Their system is covered in the linked 2019 article, although I have not checked for any changes.

Thanks again,

Bob
 
1
•••
Just to add a bit of info: Namesilo let you set the amount of the initial payment upfront, so you can get the buyer to commit a substantial amount eg 50%. Informally from comments made here at NP, Dan.com can do that on request I think.
 
Last edited:
1
•••
Dan already clearly show the amount per month, as do all of the others as far as I recall from my investigations. Agree it is important to have a clear statement of both the 'list' price and what the monthly price will be and duration.
Sorry for the confusion, I tried to say the number of months as shown on the image. I think it's very important for a first impression and interpretation without clicks

Example:

Buy now: $1200
Or
Start payment plan / Pay in installments / LTO: $120/month. For 12 months

I think the number of months to pay shown is very important mainly in conbination with the LTO wording as it makes it more clear on how it works ( first impression without clicks)

Thanks
1689866133529.png
 
Last edited:
2
•••
Bob,

This was an exceptionally well written and researched post. As always, thank you for your contribution and thought leadership.

While I read of the LTO option as Afternic, where I list my names for sale, I mass-edited them for Lease "On" I initially missed that I had to literally flip the switch to on (green) on the edit screens. All of the names had the Lease option chosen that I selected. But, I later had to choose the Lease period maximum month period.

I moved the landers to the Dan.com option and it looks even more attractive than the Afternic, IMO. When the lease text gets turned on, I know I'll have more sales activity. I like the cash flow aspect of it - as you noted - for registration renewal costs, etc. (Side note: The Afternic 2.0 beta was clunky and slow on Internet Explorer. But it was a much better experience using Chrome. The 500 names at a time tab for mass editing is a great feature.)

I'll enjoy hearing success stories for new LTO listers in the months ahead.
 
2
•••
I've been a make offer guy for decades but I did recently price 22% of my portfolio and I enabled LTO on them all. I'll probably slowly do a few more and increase the percentage a bit maybe 25-33%. See how it goes.
 
1
•••
The Afternic LTO program on the Dan.com site has been turned on. I went 13 months as max. lease. It seems to reduce the commission down to 10% on the Afternic listings. The Dan landing page looks good! Fingers crossed.
 
1
•••
There has been a lot of discussion in social media over the Afternic LTO, including the protections that apply to the domains during the LTO. I just added an update regarding this. The official Afternic X account has confirmed that Dan LTO ToS apply to Afternic LTO sales, since Dan is used to close these sales. So the restrictions quoted from the Dan ToS, see article, also apply to Afternic LTO buyers.
-Bob
 
1
•••
A key concern raised by @jberryhill, is exactly who is the registrant during the LTO period, should a UDRP be launched.

Re the case of a lessee/buyer using the leased domain in order to exploit a TM, can the seller/lessor lose the UDRP?

Re URDP third element (bad faith): in order to lose a UDRP the domain must have been a) registered and b) used in bad faith.
Clearly the fact that the domain is being used in bad faith by the lessee/buyer doesn't imply that it was registered in bad faith by the Registrant/lessor/seller.

So does it make sense for TM owners to start a UDRP in case a lessee is infringing on their TM?
 
Last edited:
1
•••
Re the third element (bad faith): in order to lose the UDRP the domain must have been a) registered and b) used in bad faith.
Clearly from the fact that the domain is being used in bad faith by the lessee/buyer doesn't imply that it was registered in bad faith by the Registrant/lessor/seller.
The argument you are making sounds logical to me, but I am leave to others more expert on UDRP to express a definitive opinion. Also, unfortunately, there seems variation in how UDRP panelists have interpreted some things, or at least it seems that to me from reading some cases.

Has anyone had a UDRP on a domain name on a lease-to-own program? Given how popular they have become on Dan, SquadHelp and now Afternic, it would seem reassuring if the answer is no. I don't know of a specific case, not to say they do not exist.

Thanks again for a well-thought out argument clearly expressed.

-Bob
 
1
•••
While researching a name I came across a Dan lander offering a name on a LTO. The interesting part is the seller had a very long description on the value of the name to generate income, and, relevant to this thread, on the tax advantages to the buyer of leasing a name.

The argument was made that lease payments may be claimed in full by the business in the financial year they occur, while it implied an outright purchase would only allow (I interpret from what was said) some amount with the purchase of the name depreciated tax-wise over several years.

Does someone with tax expertise know if that is right, and, if so, that is another major advantage to a business purchasing a high-value domain name by LTO.

-Bob
 
0
•••
While researching a name I came across a Dan lander offering a name on a LTO. The interesting part is the seller had a very long description on the value of the name to generate income, and, relevant to this thread, on the tax advantages to the buyer of leasing a name.

The argument was made that lease payments may be claimed in full by the business in the financial year they occur, while it implied an outright purchase would only allow (I interpret from what was said) some amount with the purchase of the name depreciated tax-wise over several years.

Does someone with tax expertise know if that is right, and, if so, that is another major advantage to a business purchasing a high-value domain name by LTO.

-Bob

I'm pretty sure it will differ per country and also individual interpretations. Personally I treat every purchased domain as a direct cost (in full) and never had any problems from the taxman. But I also know of a case where in a big company the accountant insisted on amortization of the purchased domain. I think it was more out of caution than imposed by the rules.
 
1
•••
Not sure how I missed this article when you first posted it!?!?

It is another well written and comprehensive look at something that could be very important to those of us toiling in the domain game...thanks again Bob!
 
1
•••
Re the case of a lessee/buyer using the leased domain in order to exploit a TM, can the seller/lessor lose the UDRP?

Re URDP third element (bad faith): in order to lose a UDRP the domain must have been a) registered and b) used in bad faith.
Clearly the fact that the domain is being used in bad faith by the lessee/buyer doesn't imply that it was registered in bad faith by the Registrant/lessor/seller.

So does it make sense for TM owners to start a UDRP in case a lessee is infringing on their TM?
A key element here is: who is the registrant?

If the domain registrant changed to, for the sake of argument, Dan.com when the installment plan began, the then clock has restarted, meaning that the the new registrant took ownership after the establishment of an existing trademark and so cannot argue that their ownership pre-dates the trademark registration.
 
1
•••
0
•••
@carob
When the domain was registered, that's not the point really.

Whether the registrant took ownership before or after the establishment of an existing trademark, that's not the point because buying/registering the domain after the TM registration is neither proof nor sign of bad faith.

The point is, the Complainant must prove the bad faith of both the lessor and of the lessee.

Ex.:
a) the domain was bought by the domainer/lessor after the registration of the TM,
b) the domainer/lessor (and not DAN) is considered as the Registrant,

in order to win the URDP - i.e. in order for the domainer to lose his domain - the Complainant must prove within the one and same proceeding both the bad faith of the domainer at the moment when he bought the domain and the bad faith of the lessee when the latter used the domain.

Is it possible?
 
0
•••
0
•••
Hi Bob,
where did you find that info?
You are right that it is no longer in the ToS linked, it seems.

The following statement, not as harsh on the buyer in default/noncompliance, but seems to protect sellers. If the buyer breaches responsibilities, you agree to transfer ownership of the name to Dan but get compensated the full purchase price (although this section re purchases in general, as opposed to rental/lease specifically which is just later). If it does apply to rentals too, it seems a solid protection, but it is possible that it does not:
In the event of a breach by the Buyer of any of its responsibilities related to payment under the completed sale, the Seller agrees to immediately transfer all of Seller’s right to the respective domain name to Dan.com and Dan.com agrees to pay Seller the full agreed upon purchase price.

PS rather than double the price, the ToS now holds buyer on a lease-to-own to the following, which if buyers read it carefully will probably cause some to seriously pause before entering the agreement:
  1. Buyer agrees to protect, defend, indemnity and hold harmless Dan.com and its officers, directors, employees, agents and third party service providers from and against any and all claims, demands, costs, expenses, losses liabilities and damages of every kind and nature (including, without limitation, reasonable attorneys’ fees) imposed upon or incurred by Dan.com directly or indirectly arising from (i) your use of the LTO Services; (ii) your violation(s) of any provision of this Agreement; and/or (iii) your violation of any third party right, including without limitation any intellectual property or other proprietary right. This indemnification obligation shall survive any termination or expiration of this Agreement or your use of the LTO Services.
-Bob
 
Last edited:
2
•••
Hi Bob,
where did you find that info?
Added note:

I dug through various posted versions of the ToS using WayBack Machine. It turns out from early July to now there have been significant reworking of the ToS, and in fact total renumbering change.

The sentence you cite had been based on my incomplete reading of the following, from the July 11, 2023 capture by WebArchive of the Dan ToS. It was double, but not double the entire price, but rather double the service fees, or double the service charges for 24 months in case of rental. Note that is per day of violation, and it also has items about remediating damage to the domain. Anyway, this (below) is what the ToS used to say, just prior to writing the article. There are significant changes in both format (7.5 does not exist, went to different Roman numeral sectioning) and detail in a number of ways. Readers should always read the current ToS linked in the article.

TwiceTheAmount-DanToS-BeforeChange.png


I am currently working to take out the sentence so readers will not be misled, because the current ToS no longer has the above penalties, but rather different ones.

Thank you for pointing this out.

-Bob
 
2
•••
Thank you Bob
allow me a couple of remarks


First
The following statement ... seems to protect sellers very well. If the buyer breaches responsibilities, you agree to transfer ownership of the name to Dan but get compensated the full purchase price (although this section re purchases in general, as opposed to rental/lease

Exactly.
That statement concerns purchases in general - as opposed to LTO.
That's the reason why only responsibilities related to payment - as opposed to responsibilities related to domain misuse - are mentioned: there is no risk of domain misuse by general purchases.

In the event of a breach by the Buyer of any of its responsibilities related to payment under the completed sale, the Seller agrees to ...

Even if this statement concerns LTO - which I doubt - it concerns only responsibilities related to payment and not responsibilities related to domain misuse, i.e. it concerns only the case when the lessee doesn't pay, not the case when he misuses the domain.


Second
PS rather than double the price, it now holds buyer on a lease-to-own to the following, which if buyers read it carefully will probably cause some to seriously pause before entering the agreement:

I'm not sure Bob, the passus that you quote concerns only damages to DAN, not to the seller:

  1. Buyer agrees to protect, defend, indemnity and hold harmless Dan.com and its officers, directors, employees, agents and third party service providers from and against any and all claims, demands, costs, expenses, losses liabilities and damages of every kind and nature (including, without limitation, reasonable attorneys’ fees) imposed upon or incurred by Dan.com

I'm not sure about the deterring effect of this passus: through domain misuse the damages to the domain owner should be more relevant than those to DAN, so that mentioning penalties only for damaging DAN doesn't deter as much as mentioning penalties for damaging the seller.

(Even if this is not true, probably there are LTO-buyers who are as clueless as I am, so with these people the deterring effect is none.)


Third
The sentence you cite had been based on my incomplete reading of the following, from the July 11, 2023 capture by WebArchive of the Dan ToS. It was double, but not double the entire price, but rather double the service fees, or double the service charges for 24 months in case of rental. Note that is per day of violation, and it also has items about remediating damage to the domain. Anyway, this (below) is what the ToS used to say, just prior to writing the article.

While this is good news for the sellers who leased their domain yesterday, currently in DAN ToS:
a) there is no mention of any penalty re damages incurred by the seller.
b) there is no mention of any indemnification to the seller.

The word indemnification is used only in regard to damages incurred by DAN.

I can't see any protection for the lessor.
Feel free (everybody, not only Bob) to correct me if I'm wrong.
 
2
•••
I don't want to prolong unduly the discussion, although recognize it is a very important aspect of LTO. I would just offer the following:
  • I agree it should be spelled out more clearly what happens from seller perspective if a name is harmed by LTO buyer. Since it seems Dan is taking on role of managing the domain name, as I understand it, it seems the simplest would be to agree that the seller gives up the name and gets the full purchase price (and then Dan and the LTO buyer deal with each other legally). The placement of the term does not make it clear if that happens, so I am just saying in my opinion that is the simple statement that is needed.
  • I think you might be reading too much into it protecting Dan but not the buyer. Remember that the LTO agreement is between the buyer and Dan, as I understand it, since Dan administer the name during the LTO and the seller is asked to give auth code so they move it under Dan control. The legal document between Dan and buyer must address from perspective of the direct parties. Not a legal opinion, just as I understand it.
  • By spelling out in such detail all of the things the buyer on a LTO buyer must not do, the agreement, in my nonexpert agreement, goes a fair way to addressing concerns of harms to name. The section below reads to me that the protections cover any harming of the domain name for any abuse in the total agreement (see my bold below).
  • As my article noted near end, those with very valuable domain names, in particular, might want to have a lawyer check the terms carefully, or avoid using LTO entirely on these names. For the sort of middle of the road names many of us own, LTO increases chance of sale, I think we should all realize that comes with some added risk, but given that LTO have been around for many years there does not seem to have been many (any?) cases of loss. Each investor needs to decide what level of protection they feel comfortable with.
Buyer agrees to protect, defend, indemnity and hold harmless Dan.com and its officers, directors, employees, agents and third party service providers from and against any and all claims, demands, costs, expenses, losses liabilities and damages of every kind and nature (including, without limitation, reasonable attorneys’ fees) imposed upon or incurred by Dan.com directly or indirectly arising from (i) your use of the LTO Services; (ii) your violation(s) of any provision of this Agreement; and/or (iii) your violation of any third party right, including without limitation any intellectual property or other proprietary right. This indemnification obligation shall survive any termination or expiration of this Agreement or your use of the LTO Services.
Would sellers be considered third party providers to Dan? Probably not, but if that could be argued they would be protected.

It occurred to me that there is an easy way for someone to check who is the registrant of record for names under LTO. As I understand it, .us names do not allow privacy, so if someone has a .us name under a LTO could you check and see if the registrant name is you, or Dan. As John Berryhill notes, it is important, should a UDRP be launched, to know who is the respondent charged with defending the name.

Again, I would ask anyone, do you know of any cases where a domain name has been harmed while on a LTO, or a UDRP has been launched against a name under a LTO? With Epik, SH, NameSilo, Dynadot, Dan, DomainMarket, HugeDomains, BrandBucket, etc. offering lease to own and payment plans for years, there must be many names sold under LTO, and it would be interesting to know how many have had problems.

Thanks again for the detailed analysis you have put into this, @Peter45. Definitely lots to think about.

-Bob
 
Last edited:
5
•••
  • The sidebar remains visible by scrolling at a speed relative to the page’s height.
Back